coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
5.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Baku.
6.  The applicant was one of the founders of an association named “Humanity and Environment” (“İnsan və Mühit” İctimai Birliyi), established on 6 September 1999.
7.  On 30 September 1999 the founders applied to register the association with the Ministry of Justice (“the Ministry”), the government authority responsible for the state registration of legal entities. In accordance with the domestic law, a non-governmental organisation acquires the status of a legal entity only upon its state registration by the Ministry.
8.  On 11 February 2000, approximately four and a half months after the date of application for registration, the Ministry returned the registration documents to the founders without taking any action, that is without issuing either a state registration certificate or an official refusal to register the association. The Ministry noted that the association's charter did not comply with Article 1 of the Law on Public Associations of 10 November 1992.
9.  The founders redrafted the charter in line with the Ministry's comments and on 24 July 2000 reapplied for state registration, submitting a new version of the charter. On 28 December 2000 the Ministry responded with another refusal, stating that the charter provisions concerning the association's members were not in compliance with Article 10 of the Law on Non-Governmental Organisations (Public Associations and Funds) of 13 June 2000 (“the NGO Law”).
10.  The applicants again revised the charter and on 28 August 2002 submitted their third registration request.
11.  Having not received any response to their third registration request, on 25 October 2002 the founders lodged an action, complaining that the Ministry “evaded” registering their organisation within the time-limits specified by law and asking the court to oblige the Ministry to register it. They also demanded compensation for non-pecuniary damage. On 2 December 2002 the Yasamal District Court dismissed the founders' claim, finding nothing unlawful in the actions of the Ministry. The court found that the association's charter had not been drafted in accordance with the requirements of the domestic law. The founders lodged an appeal against this judgment with the Court of Appeal.
12.  In the meantime, on 6 December 2002 the Ministry again returned the registration documents to the founders. This time the reason for declining the registration was the founders' failure to include in the charter the conditions for terminating membership of the association, as required by Article 13 of the NGO Law.
13.  On 22 May 2003 the Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of the Yasamal District Court. On 5 November 2003 the Supreme Court upheld the lower courts' judgments dismissing the founders' claim.
4.  The applicants live in Kostyantynivka, in the Donetsk region.
5.  On various dates between 1997 and 2002 (see appendix for details) the first to fifteenth applicants received final rulings (court judgments, labour commission's decisions) awarding salary arrears and other compensation against the State-owned factory “Avtosklo” (Виробниче об'єднання завод „Автоскло”) and instituted enforcement proceedings to recover the debts.
6.  On 22 August 2000 a new State-owned company, the “Tehkbudsklo” (Державне підприємство „Технобудскло”), was created in the course of the “Avtosklo” factory restructuring.
7.  On various dates in 2002 (see appendix for details) the fifteenth to the twentieth applicants received final court judgments awarding salary arrears and other compensation against the “Tekhbudsklo” company and instituted enforcement proceedings to collect the debts.
8.  On various dates the bailiffs informed the applicants that the collection of the debts in their favour was impeded by the companies' lack of funds and the statutory moratorium on forced sale of the State property.
9.  On 18 February 2002 and 1 November 2005 the Donetsk Commercial Court (Господарський суд Донецької області) declared bankrupt the “Avtosklo” and the “Tekhbudsklo” companies respectively and ordered their liquidation.
10.  On 19 April and 1 November 2005 the enforcement proceedings concerning “Avtosklo's” and “Tekhbudsklo's” debts respectively were terminated on account of the initiation of the companies' liquidation.
11.  The labour commission's decisions and the court judgments given in the applicants' favour remain unenforced to the present date.
4.  All 184 applicants (see Annex) reside in Ukraine.
5.  Between 1997 and 2004 the applicants or their relatives (except Mrs Y. V. Naumets) instituted separate sets of proceedings in the local domestic courts, seeking the recovery of salary arrears and other payments from the State-owned company “Atomspetsbud” (Державна будівельно-промислова компанія «Атомспецбуд»), which carried out construction work at Chernobyl within the zone that had been compulsorily evacuated. The courts found for the litigants and awarded them the amounts claimed; nevertheless, the judgments remained unenforced in full or in major part (see Annex).
6.  By an order of the Ministry of Energy dated 27 June 2002, the debtor company was liquidated and a liquidation commission established. As a result, the State Bailiffs' Service terminated the existing enforcement proceedings and all the writs of enforcement were forwarded to the liquidation commission as creditors' claims. The commission also recognised other debts owed to some of the applicants as creditor's claims[1].
7.  Furthermore, some of the applicants inherited the judgment awards against the debtor company (see Annex).
8.  The company's liquidation proceedings are still pending.
5.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in the town of Novovoronezh in the Voronezh Region.
6.  The applicant is a Chernobyl pensioner. She sued the Welfare Office for the unpaid allowances.
7.  On 15 July 2003 the Novovoronezhskyy Town Court of the Voronezh Region (“the Town Court”) awarded her the unpaid disability allowance over the period between 1 July 2002 and 31 July 2003 in the amount of 22,109.75 Russian roubles (RUB). The judgment entered into force on 25 July 2003. It was enforced in full on 9 June 2005.
8.  By a judgment of 15 March 2004 the Town Court awarded the applicant the unpaid food and disability allowances over the period between 1 July 2002 and 31 December 2003 in the amount of RUB 4,329.72 and RUB 643.85 respectively. The judgment acquired legal force on 25 March 2004. It appears that it has not been enforced to date.
9.  On 15 March 2004 the Town Court recovered in the applicant's favour the unpaid disability allowance over the period between 1 August 2003 and 31 December 2003 in the amount of RUB 13,971.50. The judgment became final on 25 March 2004. It was fully enforced on 3 August 2005.
10.  By a judgment of 6 May 2004 the Town Court awarded the applicant the unpaid disability allowance over the period between 1 January 2004 and 31 March 2004 in the amount of RUB 9,494.54. The court also increased the monthly disability allowance to RUB 5,664.85 as of 1 April 2004 and held that it had to be index-linked in accordance with legislation. On 17 May 2004 the judgment acquired legal force. On 10 June 2004 the Welfare Office ordered to increase the applicant's monthly disability allowance to RUB 5,664.85. On 11 November 2005 the applicant received RUB 9,949.54.
11.  On 9 September 2004 the Town Court recovered in the applicant's favour the unpaid food allowance over the period between 1 January 2004 and 31 March 2004 in the amount of RUB 1,139.34 and the unpaid annual disability allowance for 2004 in the amount of RUB 1,132.96. The court also increased the applicant's monthly food allowance to RUB 679.78 as of 1 April 2004 and ordered to index-link it in accordance with legislation. The court further held that as of 2005 the Welfare Office was to pay the applicant an annual disability allowance and to index-link it in accordance with legislation. The judgment entered into force on 20 September 2004. It appears that it has not been enforced to date.
12.  On 29 September 2004 the Town Court awarded the applicant RUB 12,659.40 for the unpaid disability allowance over the period between 1 April 2004 and 31 July 2004. On 11 October 2004 the judgment acquired legal force. It was fully enforced on 11 November 2005.
5.  The applicant was born in 1977 and lives in Togliatti, Samara Region.
6.  In May 1999 the applicant was injured in a road accident; in particular, his arm was broken. Immediately after the accident he was taken to hospital, where he was given first aid. Several days later his arm was amputated.
7.  In October 1999 the applicant brought proceedings for damages against the hospital before the Nikolaevskiy District Court of the Ulyanovsk Region. He claimed that the hospital’s medical staff had failed to provide him with appropriate medical care and that their negligence had led to the loss of his arm.
8.  On 2 April 2001 the court examined the case in a public hearing at which the applicant, his representative and the defendant were present. It heard the parties and witnesses and examined other evidence.
9.  At the close of the hearing the court read out the following operative part of the judgment:
“On 2 April 2001 the Nikolayevskiy District Court, composed of ..., having examined in an open court session a civil case which originated in an application by Biryukov Ryakib Ismailovich against the Nikolaevskaya [Hospital] for compensation for bodily harm, on the basis of Article 1064 of [the Civil Code of the Russian Federation] and being governed by Articles 14, 50, 191, 194-97 of [the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic],
decided:
To reject the claims by Biryukov Ryakib Ismailovich against the Nikolaevskaya Central District Hospital of the Ulyanovsk Region for compensation for bodily harm.
An appeal or a protest against the judgment to the Ulyanovsk Regional Court can be lodged with the Nikolayevskiy District Court within ten days.”
10.  A copy of the reasoned judgment was served on the applicant on 6 April 2001. It stated that, according to Article 1064 of the Civil Code, harm inflicted on the person or property of an individual is to be reimbursed in full by the person who inflicted the harm. After a description of the evidence examined by the court, the judgment contained the court’s finding that there had been no malpractice on the part of the hospital staff and no causal link between the treatment and the amputation of the applicant’s arm. For those reasons the applicant’s claims were rejected.
11.  The applicant appealed, inter alia, on the grounds that the district court had not read out the full text of the judgment at the hearing.
12.  On 3 July 2001 the Ulyanovsk Regional Court examined the case on appeal at a public hearing. Having heard the parties, it dismissed the applicant’s appeal and upheld the judgment. It noted that by reading out the operative provisions of the judgment at the hearing and providing the applicant with a copy of the reasoned judgment within the established time‑limit the district court had fully complied with the Code of Civil Procedure, notably Article 203.
13.  According to the Government, the Regional Court read out the operative provisions of its decision at the hearing in the applicant’s presence and later served a copy of its reasoned decision on the applicant.
6.  The applicant was born in 1949.
7.  The applicant lived with her family in an apartment in Baku. On 18 November 1999 her apartment was damaged by fire caused by the occupants of the neighbouring apartment. The neighbouring apartment was owned by A., a police officer. According to the applicant, her apartment became unfit to live in and she and her family had to move out and find temporary accommodation.
8.  On 15 January 2001 the applicant brought an action against A., seeking monetary compensation of an amount equivalent to 10,000 US dollars for damage caused to her apartment. The Sabunchu District Court instituted civil proceedings.
9.  It appears that for several years after this the Sabunchu District Court fixed dates for several hearings, all of which were postponed either due to the defendant’s failure to appear or for other unspecified reasons.
10.  On 12 August and 29 September 2003 the applicant sent two similar letters to the President of the Sabunchu District Court, complaining of the court’s failure to conduct the proceedings in a timely manner.
11.  On 23 June 2004 and 15 December 2004 the applicant complained to the Ministry of Justice and the Ombudsman about the Sabunchu District Court’s failure to examine her case.
12.  On 16 February 2005 she wrote a letter addressed to the President, Chief Prosecutor, President of the Supreme Court, President of the Court of Appeal, Chairman of the Milli Majlis and other authorities, complaining about the length of proceedings in the first-instance court.
13.  It is unclear whether the applicant received any replies to her letters.
14.  In the meantime, on an unspecified date in August 2004 the Sabunchu District Court sought an expert opinion on the damage caused to the applicant’s apartment by the fire. On 27 August 2004 the expert issued an opinion, according to which the damage was estimated at 2,537,000 Azerbaijani manats (AZM).
15.  On 31 January 2005 the Sabunchu District Court held a hearing and delivered its judgment, partially upholding the applicant’s claim and awarding her AZM 2,637,000. This amount included compensation for damage of the amount estimated by the expert, as well as compensation for court fees paid by the applicant. According to the applicant, she received the full text of the judgment on 31 May 2005.
16.  The applicant lodged an appeal, claiming that the amount awarded was too low and did not reflect the actual damage caused. On 13 July 2005 the Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance court’s judgment. Following an appeal in cassation by the applicant, on 6 October 2005 the Supreme Court upheld the lower courts’ judgments.
4.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Olsztyn, Poland.
5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
6.  On 12 September 2000 the applicant instituted before the Olsztyn Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) civil proceedings against Ms J.R. and Mr G.M. in which he claimed payment for construction work he had carried out. The applicant requested that his claim be considered in a summary procedure (postępowanie nakazowe).
7.  On 10 October 2000 the court allowed the action and issued a payment order against the defendant. The defendant appealed.
8.  Subsequently, all the judges of the Olsztyn Regional Court asked to be excluded from trying the case as the defendant was married to one of the judges. The case was thus transferred to the Warsaw Regional Court where it was filed under case no. XV GC 375/01.
9.  The court held the first hearing on 8 October 2002. The next hearings were held on 20 February and 28 November 2003.
10.  On 27 May 2004 the Warsaw Regional Court gave judgment in which it allowed a part of the applicant's action.
11.  The applicant lodged an appeal against this judgment.
12.  On 22 August 2005 the applicant lodged a complaint about a breach of the right to have his case heard within a reasonable time. He relied on the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki) (“the 2004 Act”).
13.  On 24 August 2005 the Warsaw Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) held the first hearing.
14.  On 3 October 2005 the Warsaw Court of Appeal dismissed the complaint about the unreasonable length of the proceedings. The court established that the Regional Court had been inactive for many months which led to the unjustified protraction of the proceedings. However, the inactivity occurred before the entry into force of the 2004 Act and thus could not be taken into consideration.
15.  The proceedings on the merits of the applicant's civil action are pending before the appeal court.
16.  In July 1999 the applicant lodged civil proceedings for payment with the Warsaw District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) against the limited liability company “Auto Żoliborz”.
17.  On 31 January 2003 the court gave a judgment. The applicant appealed.
18.  On 7 May 2004 the Warsaw Regional Court quashed the impugned judgment and remitted the case.
19.  On 24 May 2005 the Warsaw District Court gave a judgment.
20.  The appeal lodged against this judgment was rejected on 18 October 2005 as it had been lodged out of time.
21.  On 17 May 2001 the applicant initiated another set of civil proceedings against Mr A.S. and Mr J.C.
22.  On 17 May 2001 the Olsztyn District Court gave a judgment in which it partly allowed the applicant's action. The applicant appealed.
23.  On 3 March 2003 the Olsztyn Regional Court partly allowed the appeal.
4.  The applicant was born in 1931 and lives in Częstochowa.
5.  On 29 July 1999 the applicant lodged a complaint with the City Council. He claimed that his neighbour, who lived upstairs, had carried out illegal construction work as a result of which the walls of the applicant's flat had begun to crack.
6.  On 16 November 1999 an on-site inspection was conducted by the authorities.
7.  On 27 November 1999 the applicant lodged a complaint about the inactivity of the authorities with the Principal Construction Inspector (Główny Inspektor Nadzoru Budowlanego).
8.  On 1 December 1999 the District Construction Inspector discontinued the proceedings. It was found that the work had been carried out in conformity with the law. The applicant appealed to the Regional Construction Inspector.
9.  On 16 December 1999 the applicant's complaint about inactivity was transferred to the Regional Construction Inspector. It appears that the proceedings concerning this complaint remained dormant until 19 February 2002.
10.  On 25 February 2000 the Regional Construction Inspector quashed the decision of 1 December 1999 and remitted the case.
11.  On 1 August 2000 the applicant lodged a complaint about inactivity with the Minister of the Interior.
12.  On 7 August 2000 his complaint of 1 August 2000 was transferred to the Principal Construction Inspector.
13.  On 1 September 2000 his complaint was transferred to the Regional Construction Inspector.
14.  On 19 February 2002 the Regional Construction Inspector found the complaint about inactivity, not specifying which one, well-founded and fixed a new time-limit for the authorities to take all necessary action.
15.  On 15 May 2002 the District Construction Inspector issued a decision. It found that the work had been brought into conformity with the law. The applicant appealed.
16.  On 17 June 2002 the applicant again lodged a complaint about inactivity.
17.  On 24 June 2003 the Regional Construction Inspector quashed the decision of 15 May 2002 and remitted the case. The applicant appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court.
18.  On 8 July 2003 the Principal Construction Inspector found the applicant's complaint about inactivity of 17 June 2002 well-founded and fixed a new 30 days' time-limit for the authorities. However the administrative authorities do not appear to have complied with the time‑limit.
19.  Eventually, as it transpires from the submissions of the applicant as well as from the observations submitted by the Government, on 21 September 2005 the Regional Administrative Court gave a judgment on the merits of the applicant's case. It further transpires that the applicant failed to lodge a cassation appeal with the Supreme Administrative Court. Hence, the judgment of 21 September 2005 became final.
4.  The applicant was born in 1936 and lives in Warsaw, Poland.
5.  On 20 October 1994, J.B. (the applicant's neighbour) lodged a claim for payment against the applicant with the Warsaw District Court (Sąd Rejonowy).
6.  On 8 December 1994 the court held a hearing and ordered J.B. (“the plaintiff”) to submit a copy of the statement of claim.
7.  On 3 March 1995 the court stayed the proceedings as the plaintiff had failed to comply with its order.
8.  Subsequently, on 17 May 1995, J.B.'s husband – M.B. – sued the applicant in the Warsaw District Court seeking payment.
9.  On 4 July and 26 September 1995 the court held hearings.
10.  At a hearing on 21 November 1995 the court heard evidence from one witness. On 28 December 1995 the court heard evidence from M.B.
11.  On 20 November 1996 the court resumed the proceedings which had been stayed on 3 March 1995.
12.  On 25 November 1996 the court decided to join both cases.
13.  On 24 February 1997 the court notified the housing co-operative - Osiedle Młodych – that it would be in their interest to join the proceedings.
14.  On 23 April 1997 the court held a hearing and heard evidence from one witness.
15.  On 10 June 1997 the applicant challenged the impartiality of the presiding judge. On 7 July 1997 the court dismissed her challenge.
16.  On 29 July 1997 the court ordered that expert evidence be obtained. On 24 March 1998 an expert submitted his report to the court.
17.  At a hearing held on 2 June 1999 the plaintiffs withdrew their statement of claim in respect of the applicant. On the same date the court discontinued the proceedings against the applicant.
4.  The applicants, who were born in 1954, 1957, 1961, 1965, 1960, 1956, 1959, 1964 and 1958 respectively, live in Ankara, Izmir, Istanbul and Çorum. They were members of the executive and auditors boards of the Pir Sultan Abdal Cultural Association (“the Association”), a non‑governmental organisation with its headquarters in Ankara.
5.  On 15 November 2000 officers from the Ankara governor's office carried out an inspection at the headquarters of the Association. They found that the members of the executive board had failed to establish a membership registration book and that the members of the auditors board had failed to conduct a periodical inspection of the Association, in breach of Articles 62 and 29 of the Law on Associations (Law no. 2908).
6.  On 21 November 2000 officers from the Ankara Security Directorate also conducted an inspection of the registers of the association and discovered a number of defects. The Security Directorate then requested an investigation against the members of the executive and auditors boards of the association.
7.  On an unspecified date, the Ankara public prosecutor imposed a fine of 92,510,000[1] Turkish Liras (TRL) per person on the members of the executive and auditors boards of the Association.
8.  On 15 January 2001 a payment order was served on the members of the executive and auditors boards who, however, did not pay the fine within the statutory ten-day time-limit.
9.  Subsequently, on 17 April 2001 the Ankara public prosecutor filed a bill of indictment against the applicants, along with seventeen other persons who were also members of the executive and auditors boards of the Association. The public prosecutor requested that the accused be sentenced to a fine, under Article 86 of the Law on Associations and Article 119 § 5 of the Criminal Code, for their failure to comply with Articles 29 and 62 of the same Law.
10.  On 11 September 2001 the Ankara Magistrates' Court (sulh ceza mahkemesi) found the applicants and the other co-accused guilty as charged and, by issuing an order (ceza kararnamesi), sentenced them to an increased fine of TRL 136,890,000[2] per person.
11.  On 8, 9, 12 and 22 October 2001, the applicants filed objections against the decision of 11 September 2001. In their petitions, the applicants maintained that they had been deprived of the opportunity to make defence submissions and that, therefore, they did not receive a fair trial.
12.  The Ankara Criminal Court of First Instance (asliye ceza mahkemesi) dismissed the applicants' objections on the following dates:
-11 October 2001 in respect of İlhami Erseven, Bekir Aslan, Süleyman Çetinkaya and İsmail Kaya;[3]
-15 October 2001 in respect of İsmail Öztorun;
-22 October 2001 in respect of Kenan Atakul and Hikmet Yıldırım; and
-30 October 2001 in respect of Ellez Duman.